Trial reportCardiovascular intervention and therapeutics2021
What is the preferred hemostasis method for coronary angiography through the palmar artery access?
Trial report in Cardiovascular intervention and therapeutics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of pain severity, satisfaction, and complications of proximal and distal forearm anesthesia in patients undergoing trans-palmar coronary angiography.Anatolian journal of cardiology · 2022Trial
- Transradial intervention in dialysis patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: a Japanese nationwide registry study.European heart journal open · 2023Article
- Trans-Palmar Access as an Alternative Distal Forearm Access.Cardiovascular and interventional radiology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Trans-palmar catheterization has been considered to be safe and feasible and choosing a reliable hemostasis method is essential to confirm it. The aim of our study was to compare the efficacy and safety of three hemostasis approaches containing ulnar TR band, manual compression and wrist hyperextension in patients undergoing trans-palmar coronary angiography (CAG). In a non-randomized clinical trial, a total of 106 patients undergoing diagnostic CAG by tarns-palmar access were divided into three groups: ulnar TR band, manual compression and wrist hyperextension. Duration of primary hemostasis, patient satisfaction, puncture site pain severity, hospitalization time and local neuro-vascular complication were evaluated and compared in hospital and 30 days follow-up. The mean age of the patients was 62.9 ± 7.4 years and 72 patients (67.9%) were male. Primary hemostasis time was significantly shorter in hyperextension (11.5 ± 2.10 min) and manual compression groups (12.3 ± 2.20 min) than with TR band group (24.7 ± 10.25 min) (p value < 0.0001). Patient's satisfaction was higher in hyperextension approach (9.4 ± 0.65) than manual compression (8.8 ± 0.79) and TR band group (8.2 ± 0.90) (p value < 0.0001). The most pain was seen in the TR band and the less in hyperextension group until 4 h after the procedure (p value < 0.0001). Hematoma, numbness and ulnar artery occlusion as well as hospitalization time did not have significant statistical differences (p value > 0.05). In conclusion, between three methods of hemostasis in trans-palmar catheterization, hyperextension approach is the preferred method because of effectiveness, safety and less time consuming hemostatic method compared others.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.